CPS 3.5.3 and plan for Zope > 2.9 migration

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--===============0050775845==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="------------enigA57AFDD51B6EF95D6CC28E15"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigA57AFDD51B6EF95D6CC28E15
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello all,

CPS 3.5.3 will soon be out, now. As promised, it will offer support for
both Zope 2.9 and Zope 2.10.

Here's a plan for post 3.5.3 development and support of decently recent
Zope versions. Inputs welcome.

- promote the 3.5.x series to 'stable' status, create the corresponding
branches and declare the trunk (aka default) to be 3.6.0-devel.
- CPS 3.6 will drop support for Zope 2.9, and ideally should require
2.12 or 2.13.
- CPS 3.4 will become officially unsupported by the community.
- eggification of all CPS products will be the first action in the new
development trunk.
- bug fixes and minor evolutions should be done in the 3.5 branch first,
then merged into the trunk if possible. The 3.5 branch should keep on
supporting Zope 2.9 and 2.10.

That was for the actions, now the remarks and reasons why to proceed
like this:

What remains to be done for 3.5.3 is rather light : mostly a weird
problem with the recursion of IObjectWillBeMoved and similar events
(detected by CPSCore unit tests) with Zope 2.10 only, plus some more
work on the 'special' treat.

Several customer projects of mine will go live right over on CPS 3.5.3

Since last time the question has been raised on this list, I've been
thinking a bit more about the migration to Zope >=3D 2.12 and made a few
experiments. These show that while it's still possible to keep the old
way of importing products, it's a major pain to launch the tests.
Therefore, eggification has to come first, and we need at least Zope
2.10 to support it, rather than a direct jump to 2.12 or later.
Once that's been done, I'm all in favor of a direct jump from 2.10 to
2.12/13, but in any case this will progress at its own pace, in a third
branch derived from the new trunk if need be.

Cheers, don't hesitate to comment on this

--=20
Georges Racinet, http://www.racinet.fr, http://anybox.fr
Zope/CPS & OpenERP expertise, assistance & development
GPG: 0x4862FFF7 identi.ca & twitter: gracinet


--------------enigA57AFDD51B6EF95D6CC28E15
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJOCMP2AAoJEOAffZJiF+Z4iSIH/38c+NVq+qWC2nsf/KPmpuY8
wU22nTrNFEM/iFTgTAUlTeLfndFAnKEP3QPT3lD72pRWGMpKbJaV9shKV2bUyx+5
iRKqyBKqUQycjJfEJp+Z+wpdbG50kXUofn2gHV9oZMDIToOrizOD69NGeIxnwgYS
qHb/Ps9kwO9dbdEUxsu6CyD9W0QNuhtPfNXoPEad7Xas0Y7Bj5wk33qdKBRw+vw8
oZ3L6s0tHgucirN64fx7QiIylJHZqQ/pk93F1fl5ngkNOMitjdRYQ+l1pVMoQbrT
qONOyiwzTeqgZLYe2oynv2PeNAuyC8GaAIwhp8vtu9KryW1qR0Y1rn67MFGvWF0=
=gi/N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigA57AFDD51B6EF95D6CC28E15--

--===============0050775845==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
cps-devel mailing list
http://lists.nuxeo.com/mailman/listinfo/cps-devel

--===============0050775845==--